alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(121 App. Div. 527.)

#### SULLIVAN v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate División, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Carriers—Carriage of Passengers—Transfers—Demand.

Where, at the time a passenger gave his transfer to the conductor, he held out his hand to receive another, but the conductor muttered some^ thing, not heard by the passenger, and passed on through the car, and, on his return, the passenger orally demanded a transfer, which was refused, there was a sufficient compliance with the rule of the company requiring passengers to demand transfers at the time of payment of fare.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, First District.

Action by Patrick Sullivan against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company for failure to give a transfer. At the time plaintiff gave his transfer to the conductor, he held out his hand to receive another. The conductor muttered something, not heard by plaintiff, and passed on through the car; but, on his return, plaintiff orally demanded a transfer, which was refused. The defense was that plaintiff had not complied with defendant’s rule, requiring passengers to demand transfers at the time of payment of fare, which rule was posted in the car. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, and MIDLER, JJ.

A. M. Williams, for appellant.

Henry Morris Haviland, for respondent.

WOODWARD, J.

This case, as finally submitted to the Trial Court, presented a question of fact as to whether or not the passenger by adequate word or sign requested a transfer from the conductor at the time he paid his fare. This question was decided in favor of the plaintiff. I am of opinion that the decision upon the facts was justified by the. evidence.

This being so, the question of law presented in behalf of the appellant as to the reasonableness of the rule requiring the request for the transfer to be made at the time of paying the fare is not involved in this case.

The judgment of the Municipal Court should therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM S32454

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Donald A. DEVITO Senior Airman (E

- 4) , U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United Sta tes Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 16 November 2017

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Marvin W. Tubbs II

. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 60 days, reduction to E

- 1, and forfeiture of $1,000 .00 pay per month for 2 months. Sentence adjudged 24 January 2017 by SpCM convened at Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma. For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Judith A. Walker, USAF; Major Jarett Merk, USAF. For Appellee: Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF

. Before HARDING, SPERANZA, and HUYGEN, App ellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________

PE R CURIAM : The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant ’ s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice
, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).United States v. DeVito , No. ACM S32454

2 Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

KATHLEEN M. POTTER Acting Clerk of the Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

May 25, 2005 

ERRATA

Appeal No. 03-5131, -5145 

WESTFED HOLDINGS v. UNITED STATES 

Decided: May 12, 2005 Precedential Opinion 

Please make the following change: 

 On page 25, line 9, replace “$10 million” with --$3.1 million--
BF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0062

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

FRANK MACIEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including December 9, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 1 2020

10/01/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0062
# C_2021138EN.01005202.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/52

---

Order of the General Court of 12 February 2021 — Staciwa v Commission

(Case T-511/19) (1)

(2021/C 138/70)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
exhibit10-11.htm


    SHARE
PURCHASE AGREEMENT

    November
30, 2009

    
      


      Pioneer Exploration Inc., a
Nevada company, of 750 West Pender Street, Suite 2020, Vancouver, British
Columbia, V6C 2T7 (the “Seller”), will sell its
125,000 shares in the capital of Macallan Oil & Gas Inc. (the “Shares”) to Skye Capital Corporation (the
“Purchaser”), of 102
Aberdeen Road, Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, B4V 2S8 for the purchase price of CDN$100,000 (the “Purchase Price”) effective
November 30,2009 (“Closing
Date”).

       

      The
Purchaser will pay the Purchase Price on or before May 31, 2010.  The
Purchaser is liable for payment of the Purchase Price and any costs that the
Seller incurs in trying to collect the Purchase Price.

       

      The
Purchaser will secure its payment of the Purchase Price with a promissory note
and the Seller will retain physical possession of the Shares and be the
registered owner of the Shares until the Purchase Price is paid in
full.

       

      If the
Purchaser sells its beneficial ownership of the Shares, the Purchaser will pay
to the Seller all of the proceeds of sale of the Shares up to the sum of the
Purchase Price.

       

      


       

      Pioneer
Exploration Inc.

      


      Per:
/s/ Authorized
Signatory

      


      


      


      Authorized
signatory
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 35 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 35

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

    There is established a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as the ``joint committee'') 
consisting of 3 Senators and 3 Members of the House of Representatives, 
to be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, respectively. The joint committee is 
authorized to make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of 
the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United States on 
January 21, 2013.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.

    The joint committee--
            (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equipment and the 
        services of appropriate personnel of departments and agencies 
        of the Federal Government, under arrangements between the joint 
        committee and the heads of those departments and agencies, in 
        connection with the inaugural proceedings and ceremonies; and
            (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods and services to 
        carry out its responsibilities.

            Passed the Senate March 1, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 35

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To establish the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies 
for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of 
                 the United States on January 21, 2013.
```
Exhibit 10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 
 Summary Translation of Line of Credit Agreement 
  

			
	Borrower:	  	Beijing Dehaier Medical Technology Company Limited
	Lender:	  	ICBC Beijing

  

	1.	Purpose of Line of Credit. 

 The purpose of the line of credit is to allow the Borrower to finance its working capital needs (including equipment purchases). 
  

	2.	Amount of Line of Credit. 

 RMB10,000,000 
  

	3.	Line of Credit Term. 

 The
line of credit shall run from June 2, 2009 through May 20, 2010. 
  

	4.	Interest rate and method of payment. 

 Interest shall be paid monthly. The interest rate shall be equal to the benchmark interest rate of the People’s Bank plus 5%. 
  

	5.	Repayment date. 

 Payments
of principal are due on November 20, 2009, March 3, 2010 and May 20, 2010 for RMB2,000,000, RMB3,000,000 and RMB5,000,000, respectively. 
  

	6.	Guarantee. 

 The Lender
shall have a mortgage on the building held by Borrower’s affiliated entity, Beijing Dehaier Technology Company Limited. 
  

	7.	Liability for breach of contract. 

 If the Borrower does not repay the loan on the dates set forth above, the Lender shall have the right to deduct such amounts from the Borrower’s bank balance with the Lender and may charge an additional 30% interest penalty.
#### EISENSTEIN v. OLD DOMINION S. S. CO.

(City Court of New York, Special Term.

August, 1907.)

Tbial—Calendabs—Tbansfeb of Causes.

Where, in an action, a note of issue was filed, and the cause was noticed for trial and placed on the general calendar, a motion to transfer the cause to the special calendar might, under court rules providing that, where a note of issue has been filed and the cause noticed for trial, either party may apply for an order placing the cause on the special calendar, be made either before or after the term for which the cause had been noticed.

Action by Israel Eisenstein against the Old Dominion Steamship Company. Motion for an order placing the cause on the special calendar. Granted.

Morris Cukor, for plaintiff.

Robinson, Biddle & Benedict, for defendant.

WADHAMS, J.

Motion is made for an order placing the cause on the special calendar for actions the trial of which will not occupy more than two hours. Objection is made that the motion is prematurely brought, in that the cause has been noticed for the first Monday "of October, 1907, and that a motion to advance should not be entertained until after that date. Rule *2*of the Rules of the City Court of the City of New York provides in respect to such motions:

> “In actions on contract, of replevin or for conversion, where a note of issue has Been filed and the cause noticed for trial, either party may apply to the Special Term, on two days’ notice to the adverse party, for an order placing the cause on the special calendar.”

In this action a note of issue has been filed and the cause noticed for trial. The language of the rule is clear and its meaning plain. In the absence of some controlling reason to the contrary, the rule should be construed according to its explicit terms. No such reason is presented.

It is urged that until the date for which the cause is noticed for trial no cause can properly be said to be upon the calendar of the court. Such is not the practice. The note of issue having been filed, the cause has been given a number and placed upon the general calendar. The

*858rule in question requires that “the order shall specify the number of the cause on the general calendar.” After notice of trial the disposition of the action by trial must then await the term for which the action is noticed, but a motion to transfer the cause from the general to the special calendar may, under the rule, be made either before or after the term for which the cause has been noticed. The practice prescribed is uniform with that in other courts of record under similar rules, and with that upon motions for preference under section 793 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, it is in aid of the disposition of business, preventing the crowding of the Special Term calendar at the end of the summer recess, and enabling the calendars to be prepared in advance of the opening of the term for which the cause is noticed.

It appearing that the trial will not require more than two hours, the motion is granted.
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Periodic Report   Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the undersigneds knowledge:  (1)
     the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   Dated:August 6, 2010 /s/ Glenn R. JamesName:
     Glenn R. JamesTitle:
     Chief Executive Officer
   THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.


---
EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Young Innovations, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge (1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

Dated: March 11, 2004

                                     By:       /s/ Alfred E. Brennan Jr.
                                         Alfred E. Brennan Jr., President and
                                         Chief Executive Officer



                                     By:       /s/ Arthur L. Herbst, Jr.
                                         Arthur L. Herbst, Jr., Executive Vice
                                         President, Chief Operating Officer and
                                         Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Young Innovations, Inc. and will
be retained by Young Innovations, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as
part of the Form 10-K.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8029
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EZELL MCKELVER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00262-PMD) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ezell McKelver, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ezell McKelver appeals the district court’s margin order denying McKelver’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider his August 2003 criminal judgment. McKelver filed neither a direct appeal nor a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and he filed his Rule 60(b) motion more than three years after the district court entered judgment on his conviction and sentence. Although “the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration and prescribe the time in which they must be filed,” Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh , 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir. 1985), a motion for rehearing or reconsideration in a criminal case extends the time for filing a notice of appeal if the motion is filed before the order sought to be reconsidered becomes final. See United States v. Ibarra , 502 U.S. 1, 4 n.2 (1991) (holding would-be appellant who files timely motion for reconsideration from criminal judgment entitled to full time period for noticing appeal after motion for reconsideration has been decided); United States v. Dieter , 429 U.S. 6, 7-8 (1976) (same); see alsoUnited States v. Christy , 3 F.3d 765, 767 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993) (same). McKelver submitted his Rule 60(b) motion well beyond the applicable period of time provided to notice an appeal of the judgment he sought the district court to reconsider. Accordingly, because McKelver’s Rule 60(b) motion was untimely, we affirm the- 3 - district court’s order denying the motion. See United States v. McKelver , No. 5:03-cr-00262-PMD (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2019280EN.01001901.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2019 — R.C.C. v M.O.L.

(Case C-314/19)

(2019/C 280/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: R.C.C.

Respondent: M.O.L.

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, (1) and therefore the content of the directive, apply to a case in which a Notary, a public official who, in turn, is the private employer of the staff working for him, that relationship as employer being governed by general employment law and by the sectoral collective agreement, who replaces the previous departing Notary, taking over his Protocol, and who continues to provide that service at the same workplace, with the same material facilities, and who takes on the staff who worked for the previous Notary who ran that practice?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

---
S. Con. Res. 36 Agreed to March 5, 2012

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA AND EMANCIPATION HALL OF THE 

CAPITOL. 

The rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the United States Capitol are authorized to be used on January 21, 2013, by the Joint 

Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection 

with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration 

of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United 

States. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elias ECHEVERRIA-MENDEZ, a/k/a Francisco Javier Tiznado-Partida, a/k/a Martin Pineda, a/k/a Juan Lopez Pineda, a/k/a Elias Echevarria, a/k/a Elilas Mendez Echevarria, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6077.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

Elias Echeverria-Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elias Echeverria-Mendez seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 20, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on December 22, 2010.* Because Echev-erria-Mendez failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or *148reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*

*See Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
# C_2019399EN.01002002.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/20

---

Appeal brought on 30 April 2019 by Bruno Gollnisch against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2019 in Case T-375/18, Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case C- 351/19 P)

(2019/C 399/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 3 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---